1. Trang chủ >
  2. Luận Văn - Báo Cáo >
  3. Kỹ thuật >

2 Theory and formulation of PFGP-GPLs plate

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (14.97 MB, 219 trang )


 w0, x − β x  s1 θ x 

εs0 = 

; ε =  

θ y 

 w0, y − β y 



in which the nonlinear component is computed as



 w, x 0 

1

  w, x  1

0

=

ε NL =

Aθ θ

w



,y  

w

2

2





y

,

 w, y w, x   







(5. 4)



5.2.1 Approximation of mechanical displacement

Based on the Bézier extraction of NURBS, the mechanical displacement field

of the FG porous plate can be approximated as follows

(5. 5)



m×n



u h (ξ ,η ) = ∑ RAe (ξ ,η )d A

A



where n×m is the number of basis functions. Meanwhile RAe (ξ ,η ) denotes a NURBS

basis function presented in the consistent form of the linear grouping of Bézier

extraction

d A = u0 A



operator

v0 A



wA



β xA



and



Bernstein



polynomials



and



T



β yA θ xA θ yA  is the vector of nodal degrees of



freedom associated with control point A.



By substituting Eq. (5. 5) for Eq. (3.13) the in-plane and shear strains can be



rewritten as



where B LA = B1A



B 2A



m×n







=

[ε γ ]



∑  B



B3A



B sA1 B sA2 



T



A=1



L

A



1



+ B NL

A dA

2



T



99



(5. 6)



 RA, x



B =  0

 RA, y





0

RA, y

RA, x



1

A



 0 0 0 RA, x

0 0 0 0 0

 2



0 0 0 0 0 , B A = − 0 0 0 0

 0 0 0 RA, y

0 0 0 0 0 





 0 0 0 0 0 RA, x



B = 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0 0 0 0 0 RA, y



3

A



0

RA, y

RA, x



0 0



0 0

0 0 



0 



RA, y 

RA, x 



(5. 7)



0 0 0  s 2  0 0 0 0 0 RA

 0 0 RA, x − RA

,B

=

− RA 0  A 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

 0 0 RA, y



B sA1



0

RA 



and B NL

A is calculated by

B



NL

A



 wA , x

0 



  0 0 RA, x 0 0 0 0 

0

w

=

Aθ B gA



A, y  



0 0 RA, x 0 0 0 0 

 w A , y wA , x  







(5. 8)



5.2.2 Governing equations of motion

The elementary governing equation of motion can be derived in the following

form:

M uu

 0





   K uu

0  d



+

0  

φ  K φu



K uφ  d   f 

=

,

−K φφ   φ  Q 



(5. 9)



where





K φφ =∫

K uu=







(B L + B NL )T c(B L + 12 B NL )dΩ







BφT gBφ dΩ



; K u=

φ



 T mN

 dΩ

; M uu =∫ N





;











(B L )T e T Bφ dΩ



(5. 10)



f =∫ q0 NdΩ





in which



e = eTm



zeTm



f(z)eTm



eTs



f ′(z)eTs  ; N = 0 0 RA



where



100



0 0 0 0  ;



(5. 11)



0

0 0





em =

0 0 0  ; es

=

e



 31 e32 e33 



0



e15

0





e15 

0 

0 



(5. 12)



The global mass matrix M uu is described as



M uu

=



N T

 0 

 N1 



N 

 2 







 I1 I 2 I 4  N 0 



  

I 2 I3 I5   N1  dΩ

I I5 I  N 

6   2 

 4





(5. 13)



where

 I1



I 0 = I 2

I

 4



I2 I4 



I3 I5  ;

I5 I 6 



(5. 14)



( I1, I 2 , I3 , I 4 , I5 , I6 ) = ∫−h/2 ρ (1, z, z 2 , f ( z), zf ( z), f 2 ( z) )dz

h /2



R

 A

N0 =  0

 0





0 0 0 0 0 0



RA 0 0 0 0 0  ;

0 RA 0 0 0 0



0 0 0 R

0 0 0

A





N1 =

−  0 0 0 0 RA 0 0  ; N 2

0 0 0 0

0 0 0





(5. 15)



0 0 0 0 0 R

0

A





=

 0 0 0 0 0 0 RA 

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 





Substituting the second line of Eq. (5. 9) into the first line, Eq. (5. 9) can be

expressed



(



)



 + K uu + K K −1K d =

M uu d

F + K uφ K −φφ1Q

uφ φφ φ u



(5. 16)



 + Kd =

⇔ Md

F

5.3 Numerical results

5.3.1 Linear analysis

5.3.1.1 Convergence and verification studies

In this section, the accuracy and reliability of the proposed method are verified

through a numerical example which has just been reported by Li et al. [70]. The free



101



vibration analysis for a sandwich FG porous square plate reinforced by GPLs with

simply supported boundary condition (SSSS) is considered. That means the right side

of Eq.(5. 16) is zeros vector. The initial parameters of plate are given as: a = b =1 m,

h =0.005a, hp = 0.1h , hp = 0.8h , e0 = 0.5 . The sandwich plate includes isotropic

metal face layers (Aluminum) and a porous core layer which is constituted by the

uniformly distributed porous reinforced with uniformly distributed GPLs along the

thickness. In this example, the copper is chosen as the metal matrix of the core layer

whose material properties, as well as metal face ones, are given in Table 5. 1. For the

GPLs, the parameters are used as follows: lGPL = 2.5μm , wGPL = 1.5μm , tGPL = 1.5nm



1wt.% .

and Λ GPL =



102



Table 5. 1. Material properties

Properties



Piezoelectric



Core

Alumium

Ti-6Al-4V



oxide



Al2O3

Al



Cu



GPL



PZT-G1195N



Elastic properties

E11 (GPa)



105.70



320.24



70 380



130



1010



63.0



E22 (GPa)



105.70



320.24



70 380



130



1010



63.0



E33 (GPa)



105.70



320.24



70 380



130



1010



63.0



G12 (GPa)



-



-



-



-



-



-



24.2



G13 (GPa)



-



-



-



-



-



-



24.2



G23 (GPa)



-



-



-



-



-



-



24.2



ν 12

ν 13

ν 23



0.2981



0.26



0.3 0.3



0.34



0.186



0.30



0.2981



0.26



0.3 0.3



0.34



0.186



0.30



0.2981



0.26



0.3 0.3



0.34



0.186



0.30



Mass density



4429



3750



2702 3800



8960



1062.5



7600



Piezoelectric

coefficients

254 x10-12



d31 (m/V)

d32 (m/V)



-



-



-



-



-



-



254x 10-12



-



-



-



-



-



-



15.3x10-9



-



-



-



-



-



-



15.3 x 10-9



-



-



-



-



-



-



15.3 x 10-9



Electric

permittivity

p11 (F/m)

p22 (F/m)

p33 (F/m)



The convergence and accuracy of present formulation using quadratic (𝑝𝑝 = 2)



Bézier elements at mesh levels of 7x7, 11x11, 15x15, 17x17 and 19x19 elements are

studied, as shown in Figure 5. 1.



103



a)7x7



a)11x11



a)15x15



a)17x17



Figure 5. 1. Bézier control mesh of a square sandwich functionally graded porous

plate reinforced by GPL using quadratic Bézier elements.

The natural frequencies generated from the proposed method are compared

with analytical solutions [70] based on CPT. Table 5. 2 lists the natural frequencies

of the first four 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑛𝑛 values with different Bézier control mesh. Noted that mode



1, mode 5, mode 11 and mode 21 of the vibration correspond with 𝑛𝑛 = 1, 𝑚𝑚 = 1; 𝑛𝑛 =



3, 𝑚𝑚 = 1; 𝑛𝑛 = 3, 𝑚𝑚 = 3 and 𝑛𝑛 = 3, 𝑚𝑚 = 5. These modes are carefully chosen

because of the active vibration in the middle region of the plate where has more



damage than other regions [154]. Furthermore, the relative error percentages

compared with the analytical solutions are also given in the corresponding column. It

can be seen that obtained results from the present approach agree well with the

analytical solutions [70] for all selected modes. In addition, Table 5. 2 also reveals

that the same accuracy of natural frequency is almost obtained for all modes using

quadratic elements at mesh levels of 17x17 and 19x19 elements. The difference

between the two mesh levels is not significant. As a result, for a practical point of



104



view, the mesh of 17x17 quadratic Bézier elements is applied to model the square

plate for all numerical examples.

Table 5. 2: Comparison of convergence of the natural frequency (rad/s) for a

sandwich simply supported FGP square plater reinforced by GPLs with different

Bézier control meshes.

Methods

Mesh



Mode type (m,n)



Present



Analytical [70]



Relative error* (%)



7x7



(1,1)



161.1793



160.6964



+0.30050



(1,3)



854.1663



803.4820



+6.30808



(3,3)



1540.242



1446.2676



+6.49774



(3,5)



2885.639



2731.8389



+5.62994



(1,1)



160.7703



160.6964



+0.04598



(1,3)



822.1301



803.4820



+2.32091



(3,3)



1466.455



1446.2676



+1.39584



(3,5)



2799.861



2731.8389



+2.48998



(1,1)



160.7038



160.6964



+0.00460



(1,3)



812.5604



803.4820



+1.12988



(3,3)



1455.374



1446.2676



+0.62964



(3,5)



2766.213



2731.8389



+1.25828



(1,1)



160.7008



160.6964



+0.00273



(1,3)



810.1388



803.4820



+0.82849



(3,3)



1452.617



1446.2676



+0.43907



(3,5)



2755.097



2731.8389



+0.85138



(1,1)



160.6970



160.6964



+0.00037



(1,3)



810.1320



803.4820



+0.82764



(3,3)



1452.603



1446.2676



+0.43810



(3,5)



2755.087



2731.8389



+0.85100



11x11



15x15



17x17



19x19



*Relative error=



Present value-Analytical value

Analytical value



.100%



5.3.1.2 Static analysis

In this example, the static analysis of a cantilevered piezoelectric FGM square

plate with a size length 400 mm × 400 mm is considered. The FGM core layer is

105



made of Ti-6A1-4V and aluminum oxide whose the effective properties mechanical

is described based on the rule of mixture [152]. The plate is bonded by two

piezoelectric layers which are made of PZT‐G1195N on both the upper and lower

surfaces symmetrically. The thickness of the FGM core layer is 5 mm and the

thickness of each piezoelectric layer is 0.1 mm. All material properties of the core

and piezoelectric layers are listed in Table 5. 1. Note that, as power index 𝑛𝑛 = 0



implies the FG plate consists only of Ti‐6A1‐4V while 𝑛𝑛 tends to ∞, the FG plate



almost totally consists of aluminum oxide.



Firstly, the effect of input electric voltages on the deflection of the cantilevered



piezoelectric FGM square plate subjected to a uniformly distributed load of 100

N/m2 is examined. Table 5. 3 shows the tip node deflection of FG plate



corresponding to various input electric voltages. These results agree well with the

reference solutions [56] all cases. In addition, the centerline deflection of

piezoelectric FGM square plate only subjected to input electric voltage of 10𝑉𝑉 is

displayed in Figure 5. 2. As expected, the obtained results are in good agreement with



the reference solution, which is reported by Nguyen‐Quang et al. [156]. For further



illustration, the centerline deflection of piezoelectric FGM square plate subjected to

simultaneously electro‐mechanical load is shown in Figure 5. 3. The observation

indicates that when the input voltage increases, the deflection of the plate becomes

smaller because the piezoelectric effect makes the displacement of FGM plate going

upward.

Table 5. 3: Tip node deflection of the cantilevered piezoelectric FGM plate subjected

to a uniform load and different input voltages (10-3 m).

Input voltages (V) Ti-6Al-4V

Aluminum oxide

Present CS-DSG3 [156] Present CS-DSG3 [156]

0

-0.25437 -0.25460

-0.08946 -0.08947

20

-0.13328 -0.13346

-0.04608 -0.04609

40

-0.01229 -0.01232

-0.00271 -0.00271



106



(a) Ti-6Al-4V



(b) Aluminum oxide



Figure 5. 2: Profile of the centerline deflection of square piezoelectric FGM plate

subjected to input voltage of 10V.



(a) Ti-6Al-4V



(b) Aluminum oxide



Figure 5. 3: Profile of the centerline deflection of square piezoelectric FGM plate

under a uniform loading and different input voltages.

Next, an FG porous plate reinforced by GPLs integrated with piezoelectric

layers, PFGP‐GPLs, which has the same geometrical dimensions, boundary

conditions and pressure loading with above example is investigated. The material



107



properties of porous core and face layers, as well as GPL dimensions, are given as

the same in Section 5.3.1.1 Table 5. 4 presents the deflection of tip node of cantilever

PFGP‐GPLs plate with 𝛬𝛬𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 0 and various porosity coefficients under a uniform

loading and different input electric voltages. Through our observation, at a specific



of input electrical voltage, an increase in porosity coefficients leads to in the

deflection of PFGP‐GPL plate because the stiffness of plate will decrease



significantly as the higher density and larger size of internal pores. Conversely, the

deflection of PFGP‐GPL plate decreases when the input voltage increases.

Meanwhile, Table 5. 5 shows the tip node deflection of a cantilever PFGP‐GPL plate

for three GPL dispersion patterns with 𝛬𝛬𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 1 wt.% and 𝑒𝑒0 = 0.2 under a uniform

loading and different input electric voltages. As expected, the effective stiffness of



PFGP‐GPLs plate can be greatly reinforced after adding a number of GPLs into

matrix materials.

The careful observation shows that the dispersion pattern 𝐴𝐴 dispersed GPLs



symmetric through the midplane of plate provides the smallest deflection while the

asymmetric dispersion pattern 𝐵𝐵 has the largest deflection. As a result, the dispersion



pattern 𝐴𝐴 yields the best reinforcing performance for the static analysis of PFGP‐

GPLs plate. Besides, for any specific weight fractions, the GPLs dispersion patterns,



input electric voltages and porosity coefficients, the porosity distribution 1 always

provides the best reinforced performance as evidenced by obtaining the smallest

deflection. This comment is clearly shown in Figure 5. 4 which shows the effect of

porosity coefficients and GPL weight fractions on the tip deflection of PFGP‐GPL

plates with input electric voltage of 0V. Possibly to see that the combination between

the porosity distribution 1 and GPL dispersion pattern 𝐴𝐴 makes the best structural

performance for FG porous square plate compared with all considered combinations.

Figure 5. 5 shows the profile of the centerline deflection of the cantilever



PFGP‐GPLs plate for various core types and input electric voltages under electro‐

mechanic loading. Accordingly, four core types constituted by the porosity

distribution type 1, the GPL dispersion pattern 𝐴𝐴 and two values of the porosity

108



coefficients and weight fraction of GPLs are considered in this example. It is observed

that the stiffness of the plate is significantly improved when reinforced by GPLs.

Besides, the centerline deflection of the plate tends to go backward to the input

electric voltage due to the piezoelectric effect. Therefore, if the porous core layer of

plate reinforced by GPLs combines with the piezoelectric material, the displacements

of the structure will significantly decrease.

Table 5. 4: Tip node deflection w.10−3 (m) of a cantilever PFGP-GPLs plate for

various porosity coefficients with ΛGPL =

0 under a uniform loading and different

input voltages.

Input



e0



voltages (V)



0.0



0.1



0.2



0.4



0.6



Non-uniform porosity 1

0



-0.2055



-0.2131 -0.2213 -0.2395 -0.2606



20



-0.1096



-0.1136 -0.1178 -0.1271 -0.1381



40



-0.0137



-0.0140 -0.0142 -0.0148 -0.0156



Non-uniform porosity 2

0



-0.2055



-0.2182 -0.2330 -0.2721 -0.3348



20



-0.1096



-0.1162 -0.1238 -0.1438 -0.1761



40



-0.0137



-0.0141 -0.0145 -0.0155 -0.0174



Uniform porosity

0



-0.2055



-0.2193 -0.2352 -0.2558 -0.3332



20



-0.1096



-0.1167 -0.1248 -0.1453 -0.1750



40



-0.0137



-0.0141 -0.0144 -0.0154 -0.0168



Table 5. 5: Tip node deflection w.10−3 (m) of a cantilever PFGP-GPLs plate for three



1wt % and e0 =0.2 under a uniform loading and different

GPL patterns with ΛGPL =

input voltages.

GPL



Input voltages (V)



patterns 0



20



40



109



60



Xem Thêm
Tải bản đầy đủ (.pdf) (219 trang)

×